First your money then your clothes

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Flanders, Apr 28, 2011.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There’s an old rhyme that says “Everything goes! First your money then your clothes.”

    “Everything goes” has been happening with the US Constitution since 1913 and the XVI Amendment. First your money then your Rights.

    Real property Rights are all but gone thanks to property taxes, the EPA, and the parasite class. Now this is under attack:


    One of the most valuable individual rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is the right of "inventors" to own "the exclusive right" to their "discoveries" for "limited times." This right was set forth in Article I, Section 8, years before the rights to freedom of speech and religion were added.

    Here again you see the hand of the traitors attacking another expression of America’s sovereignty:

    All other countries award patents under an alien system called "first-to-file," i.e., the first person to file a paper with a government office. Foreign and powerful financial interests are now haranguing us to make us believe that the new dogma of globalism demands that we "harmonize" our patent system with the rest of the world by changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

    There are several ways for an inventor to prove an invention is his without filing for a patent. There is only one way to file first —— that way is to file first. There have been numerous cases where an inventor proved his invention was stolen by a corporation. Had the first-to-file system been in place those inventors would not have had a case.

    Note that industrial inventions and copyrights come under the heading of intellectual property. Over the years composers, authors, etc., had their property Rights extended for a longer period of time, while the law Phyllis Schlafly talks about in the enclosed column is designed to hand industrial property Rights to the International community.

    My common sense tells me that inventors are relatively small in number. While the “artistic community” is large, well-organized, heavily subsidized, and an indispensable element in promoting the parasite class’ agenda. In the same vein, inventors do not have a tax dollar bureaucracy like the National Endowment for the Arts looking out for them.

    The truth is that no politician is going to offend the so-called artistic community, while inventors do not have the clout, or the propaganda tools, needed to defend themselves.


    Phyllis Schlafly
    The Patent Bill is Unconstitutional

    The biggest issue for many new members of Congress and tea partiers is trying to hold the federal government within its constitutional limits. Unfortunately, the House now seems poised to pass a law in direct violation of the Constitution.

    One of the most valuable individual rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution is the right of "inventors" to own "the exclusive right" to their "discoveries" for "limited times." This right was set forth in Article I, Section 8, years before the rights to freedom of speech and religion were added.

    This right is recognized and reinforced by our system of granting patents to inventors, so they will be able to protect their exclusive ownership for a limited number of years, after which the invention goes into the public domain. U.S. patents are awarded to the "first-to-invent" a new and useful product.

    Our system perfectly implements the stated purpose of the constitutional provision "to promote the progress of science" because, as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 43, it serves both individual property rights and the public good. The U.S. patent system was unique when the Constitution was written and is still unique in the world today.

    Many important inventors have attested that they would not have had the incentive to labor for years creating their invention were it not that our system offers hope that its profits would enable them to achieve the American dream. Our patent system, which protects the property right of the inventor, is why the United States has produced most of the world's great inventions and dominates the world in innovation.

    All other countries award patents under an alien system called "first-to-file," i.e., the first person to file a paper with a government office. Foreign and powerful financial interests are now haranguing us to make us believe that the new dogma of globalism demands that we "harmonize" our patent system with the rest of the world by changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

    A bill to do this (S.23) already passed the Senate after a quickie hearing that did not include a single inventor, a small business person, a venture capital person or a constitutional authority. It's now being pushed without any publicity in the House as H.R. 1249.

    But harmonization makes no sense. Why would we abandon the proven best system that has worked successfully for more than two centuries and replace it with a proven inferior system?

    More importantly, this patent bill must be rejected because it is flat-out unconstitutional. The Constitution plainly states that the property right belongs to "inventors," not to someone handing a piece of paper to a government bureaucrat.

    Seven scholarly law review articles have examined this issue and concluded that first-to-file is unconstitutional. No scholarly review proves otherwise.

    Grass-rooters and tea partiers must not let Congress flout the Constitution by redefining the word "inventors" to be mean paper filers. The Constitution's framers and the early Congresses (which included many men who had been members of the Constitutional Convention) were very clear that first-to-invent is the meaning of the word "inventors."

    First-to-invent is in conformity with tradition and history, as well as consistent with originalist, strict constructionist and textualist views of the Constitution. More than 200 years of statutes and jurisprudence confirm the first-to-invent standard.

    The Patent Acts of 1790 and 1793 legislated that the patent must be awarded to "the first and true inventor." The Patent Act of 1836 used the language "original and true inventor" and "original and first inventor."

    In Evans v. Jordan (1815), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Constitution guarantees the "exclusive" right "to the inventor from the moment of invention." In Shaw v. Cooper (1833), the Supreme Court upheld the law that vested "the exclusive right in the inventor only."

    Now, the liberals are circulating the un-American notion that we should utilize treaties and foreign laws to reinterpret our Constitution and statutes. They want Congress to use its treaty power or its Commerce Clause power to override the inventor's clause, overturn over 200 years of settled and successful law, and put us on the road to a borderless patent system.

    First-to-file would elevate paperwork over true inventions, dilute the quality of patents because applications would be rushed to be filed, and cede sovereignty on the direction of our own patent system. First-to-file favors foreign inventors and big corporations that have the lawyers and resources to file quickly and redundantly, while taking rights away from independent inventors and small businesses.

    No matter what arguments of policy or efficiency are made by first-to-file supporters, we cannot let them violate or ignore the Constitution. Tell your congressman to vote no on the patent bill.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2011/04/26/the_patent_bill_is_unconstitutional
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well the MOB democracy took over a long time ago, read the 1606 virginia treaty they own everything and always have.

    as far as I am concerned the constitution is a ruse.

    everything is grounded in trusts and the boys near the top know who the trustees are and who the beneficiaries are and it aint us and never will be.

    if you look at the volumes and volumes of law we have it is all skewed to power staying in power. There is no remedy.

    I mean it, I have researched several positions and there simply is no remedy. There is always law in both directions and law that would get our feet in the door are nonexistant.

    I mean cases get ripped right off the docket so we cannot see them!

    Look for the case where the judge sweeney ruled that the monetary system is a complete scam and the guy could pay in beans! you wont find it and only a few people that were in the court at the time have certified copies of it.

    They burn the books behind them as it gets more impossible to get remedy every day.
     
  3. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The article, including the best commercial since “Where’s the beef?”, deals with innovation rather than inventions and patent Rights; nevertheless, I think the topic is closely related to my OP.

    May 02, 2011
    Obama and Susie's Lemonade Stand
    Otis A. Glazebrook IV

    Verizon has a great Ad running on TV which sums up the quintessential American Dream, B.O. (Before Obama), in thirty-two seconds:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MUcpCB7Wls8

    The story told and retold through out American History from the beginning. Some one -- anyone with an idea -- for building and selling a "better mouse trap" by using or creating American technology and his/her own God given talents could create new successful and profitable businesses, repeatedly. It is the story of America.

    Contrast Susie's short story with that of our President. Barack Obama does not, to this day, have a ten year old's thirty-two seconds of private business experience; nor by the way does Obama have any new and novel ideas which are actually productive for the U.S. economy.

    Stimulus "shakedowns" and "Quantitative Easing" are not beneficial to the general economy; as Frederick Bastiat postulated in his "Broken Window" essay. Quantitative Easing actually doubles the original losses and will multiply them again, once higher interest rates inevitably kick in.

    Obama's shake downs are only beneficial to Big Government at the expense of the general economy.

    Verizon wisely leaves out the reality of Obama's America.

    You can be sure Barack and his fellow leeches, at all bureaucratic levels, who had nothing whatever to do with Susie's success, will be in line, palms up, shaking her down or "Regulating" her out of business if she doesn't capitulate. This used to be called fascism now it is Obamanomics. Think I exaggerate? Look no further than G.M.

    How much longer is the "Tail going to be wagging to dog?"

    Susie's "success" and "profits" are now dirty words, while the "F-bomb" is now considered normal spoken intercourse by too many.

    Will we have to be totally destitute before we wake up? Point your finger at Obama if you want to, but "We" elected him.

    I'd rather find someone for the highest job in the land who can actually run an honest lemonade stand.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/obama_and_susies_lemonade_stan.html
     
  4. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here’s an update on the bill Congress is ramming through under the radar. Note Senator Leahy’s loyalty.

    Senate Democrats have it all their own way. Hussein will sign the bill. His constituency, the parasite class never contributes anything; they will continue to feed at the public trough; so they don’t care about patents.

    Will the House stop this bill? The article does not mention where the House is at. If it’s not stopped there, I want to hear the excuse.


    Pending Patent Bill Puts 'Global Harmonization' Above American Innovation
    by James R. Edwards, Jr. (more by this author)
    Posted 05/11/2011 ET

    Congress is about to give multinational corporations such as IBM an even more outsized advantage over small businesses, independent inventors, and American innovators.

    Hoping to rush legislation through while the public focuses elsewhere, mega-business’s water carriers are urging potentially disruptive colleagues to “trust us” on the patent bill speeding across Capitol Hill.

    Conservative activists and many Tea Partiers have read every word about Washington’s budget standoff, taxpayer dollars going to abortionists at Planned Parenthood, and Obama’s involving America militarily in Libya’s internal affairs. But who’s heard a word about “patent reform"?

    Though the details of patent law make people’s eyes glaze over, how America awards patents carries serious consequences.

    The danger is much closer than you think. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) recently jammed through Sen. Patrick Leahy’s S 23. Conservatives in the Senate were asleep at the wheel, giving Obama-Leahy-Reid a 95-to-5-vote cakewalk.

    Where Washington and globalist business are concerned, what you don’t know can hurt you. In the patent arena, they’re pushing “harmonization.” Which means we’re about to dumb down our patent system, aligning it with the rest of the world.

    Why? Because transnational companies such as IBM and Dow Chemical aren’t concerned about whether our patent laws give the United States an economic competitive advantage. They prefer to make it easier on themselves so they can obtain patents in the same manner in one country as in another.

    It so happens that the patent model prevalent overseas favors global companies. Chinese and Indian “pirates” can more easily steal intellectual property under those systems.

    To connect some dots: IBM is based in Leahy’s Vermont. IBM is one of the biggest patentees. Three-fourths of IBM’s employees work in other nations, to which IBM has shifted its research and development.

    Washington is about to gut America’s successful, unique patent system. This very system has made the United States the world leader in innovation. The innovation the U.S. patent system has brought about has given America the world’s greatest economy—with the highest standard of living and a large, broad middle class.

    Our Founders knew what they were doing when they wrote Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. They explicitly empowered Congress to “secur[e]” "for limited times" to “inventors” “the exclusive right” to their "discoveries,” thus giving them individual property rights in their creations.

    Why? To “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” A private property right would benefit this nation economically.

    The image of the guy tinkering in his garage or laboratory and discovering a cutting-edge innovation is not make-believe. Americans Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, Steve Perlman (WebTV and QuickTime creator), Dr. Ray Damadian (inventor of the MRI) were all beneficiaries of our unique patent system.

    From the beginning, U.S. patents have gone to the first person to invent something. For nearly two centuries, U.S. inventors have enjoyed a grace period of at least a year to line up financing and business partnerships. And until just the past couple of decades, U.S. patents could be challenged only in court, were kept secret before issuance, and lasted 20 years from patent issuance instead of application filing.

    From First-to-Invent to First-to-File

    The globalists’ misnamed "America Invents Act" adds a European-type post-grant review process. That will make it easier to perpetrate challenges to a patent’s validity throughout the patent’s life. Such challenges devalue the patent and add thousands of dollars to inventors’ costs.

    The bill switches from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file basis for issuing patents. Obviously, a mega-corporation can win the race to the patent office to file an application. Independent inventors, university research spinoffs, and smaller companies get hammered by the first-to-file disadvantage.

    Also, third parties—even competitors—can soon interject themselves into patent application reviews.

    Cynically, there’s a gift for bailed-out banks. The financial services industry, which has lost two previous tries, can again challenge the patent of inventor Claudio Ballard. Bankers have repeatedly infringed Ballard’s patented electronic check transaction platform and just won’t take “pay up” for an answer.

    All told, patent “reform” will in fact deform our nation’s intellectual property engine—and dull our competitive edge.

    Obama administration Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos cut short his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on this subject, stiffing lawmakers who had more questions. The former IBM executive had to fly off to Europe.

    Kappos gave a speech in London on patent harmonization. The patent office director reportedly disparaged the American patent system. He said it was “bizarre” that this country is stuck with what he called a 19th century
    model.

    Many Diverse Opponents

    In March, Kappos told an Asia-Pacific patent conference, “With the demands of a global marketplace, there is simply no excuse for our patent systems to stand as the lone remaining uncoordinated system in an otherwise highly fluid, global environment for exchange of all kinds."

    Many beg to differ. Midsize and smaller U.S. companies, the venture capital sector, the U.S. Business and Industry Council, many universities, independent inventors, the major engineering society, Reagan Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese, a range of conservative organizations including Eagle Forum and others oppose the legislation.

    In fact, most Americans may reach a conclusion different from that of the Kappos-Obama-Leahy-IBM “global harmonization” crowd.

    Mr. Edwards is coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43425
     
  5. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm. I would challenge this standard under the Copyright clause, which protects "Inventors", not "Filers."

    Just a thought.
     
  6. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Universities lining up with tech firms, pharmaceutical companies, and unions against individual achievement comes as no surprise. The only thing the people at the top of those entities are good at is getting ahead in an institutional setting; so it’s no wonder they hate the individual and individual effort outside of institutional control.

    One thing is certain, if union bosses are for it, the rest of us better be against it.

    On a more mundane level, the CEOs of large corporations can rake in millions in salary every year from the income a corporation derives from a stolen invention, while the actual inventor gets nothing; not even a day in court. You could say that the CEO is getting the money that should go to the inventor.

    Don’t be fooled by the people pushing “first to file” legislation. It’s about money going to the people running institutions and nothing else. No union boss, CEO, or president of a university gives a rat’s ass about an individual, especially individuals who make a lot of money from their inventions. They can’t control creative art; so they’ll settle for controlling industrial inventions and inventors. In short: Inventors either submit to corporate control or waste their time working for themselves.


    Coalition of business, unions and others work to save patent bill
    By Kevin Bogardus - 06/13/11 07:59 PM ET

    A coalition of tech firms, pharmaceutical companies, universities and unions is trying to keep a long-awaited patent reform bill from being derailed by claims that part of it is unconstitutional.

    About 150 organizations signed a letter sent Monday to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asking them to protect a provision that has stirred opposition from powerful House Republicans.

    The provision would allow the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to collect and keep user fees to fund its operations, which supporters say would allow it to pare down its backlog of pending patent applications.

    The letter argues the provision, found under Section 22 of the bill, is necessary and can stop “a hidden tax on innovation” and a “job-stifling patent application backlog.”

    “Section 22 is necessary because over the last two decades more than $875 million in user fees has been redirected to other governmental purposes in what amounts to a hidden tax on innovation,” the letter states. “Absent a statutory mechanism to prevent future fee diversion, as we have seen all too often in previous years, the existing and new responsibilities vested in the PTO will suffer, the ability of the PTO to plan long-term and build the agency our innovation economy demands will be frustrated, and the job-stifling patent application backlog will continue.”

    The patent office has been reliant on Congress for funding. Supporters of the reform bill say that arrangement has led to delays for inventors and argue the PTO needs to control its own stream of revenue.

    Prominent trade groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers signed the letter, as did brand-name companies like Intel and Pfizer. A number of labor groups also signed on, including the United Steelworkers and the National Treasury Employees Union.

    The patent legislation was first introduced in 2005 and is close to passage after years of lobbying and committee work. The Senate approved the bill earlier this year.

    But if the user fee provision is axed from the legislation, K Street backing for patent reform could crumble.

    “If Section 22 came out of the bill, it could potentially kill it,” said Tim Tardibono, public policy director for CONNECT, a San Diego nonprofit group that helps startup tech companies.

    “I think you would see all these companies and trade associations changing their position on the bill and coming out against it,” said Tardibono, who supports the patent reform bill.

    Two prominent House GOP chairmen — Reps. Hal Rogers (Ky.) of the Appropriations Committee and Paul Ryan (Wis.) of the Budget Committee — raised constitutional concerns with the legislation last week, saying it could weaken congressional oversight of the patent office.

    In a June 6 letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the two lawmakers said the provision would “hand the congressional ‘power of the purse’ — bestowed in the Constitution — to the Obama White House, and essentially eliminate the ability of Congress to perform substantive oversight of the PTO.”

    They suggest that the provision “be deleted or otherwise be modified prior to floor consideration in order to strengthen oversight of this important agency, and to ensure American citizens are getting the most from every dollar.”

    That was followed by a June 8 memo from David Addington, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president of domestic and economic policy, also opposing the provision. Addington, former Vice President Cheney’s one-time chief of staff, said the measure would give the patent office too much autonomy.

    “In an era of federal government overspending and overborrowing, the last thing Congress should do is turn over to a federal agency the decision on how much the agency can spend,” Addington said in his memo.

    Supporters of the patent reform bill dismiss those arguments, saying there is plenty of oversight for the patent office, including sending an annual spending plan to appropriators.

    “We need every stimulus we can get, and this is a very good piece of legislation that can stimulate the economy,” said Gary Griswold, chairman emeritus of the Coalition for Patent Fairness and formerly 3M Co.’s chief intellectual property counsel.

    “People expect those fees put the PTO to work to work the patent system,” Griswold said. “If those applications get examined and become patents, there is a decent percentage of them that will turn into job-creating businesses.”

    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...-business-unions-scramble-to-save-patent-bill
     
  7. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48

Share This Page